Thomas Wallis

The plaintiff sought summary judgment to declare a mortgage registered by the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) against her matrimonial home a nullity, alleging her signature was forged by her husband.

RBC brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking an equitable charge by subrogation, as the funds advanced under the disputed mortgage were used to pay off the plaintiff's prior valid mortgages with TD Bank.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the forgery allegation required a trial.

However, the court granted RBC's motion in part, awarding an equitable charge of $370,804 for the payoff of one TD mortgage to prevent the plaintiff's unjust enrichment.

The court also granted judgment against the plaintiff for $350,429 for the payoff of a second TD liability, but directed a trial to determine if that prior mortgage had been discharged in error before granting a second equitable charge.

Addendum to a prior decision on a family law motion addressing spousal support obligations.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant $1,000 per month in spousal support effective December 2, 2015.

As a consequence of the support order, the respondent’s life insurance obligations were reduced accordingly.

The decision clarifies the operative support amount following the earlier motion ruling.

The respondent brought a motion under s. 17 of the Divorce Act to vary a 2006 spousal support order following his retirement from federal government employment.

The original order required payment of $2,000 per month in non‑compensatory spousal support after a 30‑year marriage with no children and included division of the payor’s pension through equalization.

The court found that the payor’s impending retirement and resulting 55% income reduction constituted a material change in circumstances.

While the payee continued to experience economic hardship and had health limitations affecting employability, the court found insufficient efforts toward self‑sufficiency and inadequate use of equalized assets.

Balancing the payor’s reduced income, the payee’s ongoing need, and principles against double recovery from pension assets, the court reduced the support obligation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and issued an endorsement on costs.

The respondents were collectively awarded costs of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST, payable by the Confederation of National Trade Unions (CSN) and La Régie Des Rentes Du Québec.

The appellants, Confederation of National Trade Unions and La Régie Des Rentes Du Québec, appealed an order staying the obligation of Slater Steel to file an actuarial report and relieving the company and its directors from any resulting obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reliance on evidence that further employer contributions were not due until the valuation report was filed.

The Court also noted that other parties had acted in reliance on the stay order.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action as an abuse of process.

The motions judge had concluded that commencing a new action against individual defendants after the court refused to amend the claim to name them in a prior action constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal found this was an error in principle, as the prior decision was purely procedural and did not deal with the merits of the claim.

The appeal was allowed and the action was permitted to proceed.

The respondents moved to stay the appellant's action and for an order for security for costs on the appeal, citing the appellant's failure to pay over $27,000 in costs awards from previous unsuccessful proceedings.

The appellant, who was suing for historical sexual and physical abuse, was impecunious and relied on a disability pension.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions, finding that despite the unpaid costs and the respondents' valid concerns, the impecunious appellant should not be deprived of a final opportunity to have his case considered on the merits, as the appeal was not plainly devoid of merit.

The appellants appealed an order striking their third party claims against the Attorney General of Ontario for breach of fiduciary duty and malicious failure to prosecute.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred by concluding that the Attorney General can never owe a fiduciary duty in the prosecutorial function, as the categories of fiduciary are not closed.

The Court also held that the motions judge improperly relied on affidavit evidence on a Rule 21 motion to conclude that the malicious failure to prosecute claim was incapable of proof.

The third party claims were reinstated.

The appeal concerned the interpretation of a short-form employment agreement governing commission entitlement on contracts secured with Bell.

The appellant argued the respondent was not entitled to commissions after leaving employment before the end of 1996.

The court upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that salary compensated ongoing servicing work, while commissions were earned once the Bell contracts were secured, even though the amount could only be calculated at contract end.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, the Régie des rentes du Québec, brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the respondent, the Pension Commission of Ontario, which had approved the withdrawal of a pension surplus by an employer.

The pension plan had members in both Ontario and Québec.

The respondent, acting as the major authority under a reciprocal agreement, applied Ontario law exclusively to the surplus application.

The Divisional Court found the respondent's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider or apply Québec law to the Québec members, despite the plan's terms and the lack of an express exemption.

The decision was quashed as it affected Québec members and remitted for reconsideration.